Figure 2.3 François Boucher: The Toilette of Venus, oil on canvas, 108.3 × 85.1 cm, 1751. The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, bequest of William K. Vanderbilt, 1920, Acc. No: 20.155.9.
Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, www.metmuseum.orgThe radical nature of La Font de Saint Yenne’s reaction against such trends, expressed in his review of the
1746 Salon arose from the fact that he spoke as an amateur critic representing men of feeling and taste,
rather than as someone of professional or academic standing. He saw the growing preoccupation with
decorative painting as a serious threat to public welfare (Harrison, Wood and Gaiger, 2000, 554–557),
and linked this very clearly with the declining importance of serious history painting. Repeating familiar
regrets for the loss of the golden age of this genre he blamed an obsession with “ornamentation” and
contemporary fashions in interior décor for the physical lack of space remaining for history paintings,
which were now forced into small, narrow spaces above doors or mirrors, within the gilded frames of
wall panels or painted on firescreens. He bemoaned the lack of erudition possessed by contemporary
history painters and their limited repertoire of (often trivial) subjects: their work represented “the triumph
of the plagiarist journeyman painter, requiring neither genius nor imagination” (Harrison, Wood and
Gaiger, 2000, 558). Such work provided “eye candy”flattering portraits and silk tapestries, both of
which he associated with selfishness and vanity. Women in particular were often blamed for this
profusion of boudoir taste, a charge which more recent feminist histories have attributed to a dominant
masculine discourse of art (Casid, 2003, 97–98).
A building boom in Paris in the 1740s, when the French court moved there from Versailles, led to the
construction of many private mansions for aristocrats and wealthy financiers. They needed works of art
that would fit the spaces in or between their lavish rococo panels, mirror frames and decorative
moldings. Smaller cabinet paintings (smallerscale works intended for small, private rooms) were also
popular in Paris in this early part of the century: these trends did not favor history painting.The Beauvais
tapestry factory became adept at producing smaller tapestries in the “lower” pastoral and genre scenes
(Scott, 1995, 36). It was particularly successful from 1726, when under the direction of Oudry; and from
1739 tapestries could be exhibited at the Salon, which enhanced their popularity and marketability.
Tapestry designs of “gallant” subjects by Boucher and landscapes by Vernet were of a suitable size for the
domestic interiors of the elite and set the right tone of light entertainment. Wealthy collectors such as
Pierre Crozat (1665–1740) welcomed into their homes artists such as Watteau, who was then able to mix
with other artists, amateurs and writers on art. Prints of “gallant” subjects by Watteau and his imitators,
including JeanBaptiste Pater (1695–1736) and JeanFrançois de Troy (1679–1752), were very
popular with this circle. An interest in “lower” or less “grand” genres existed, for this class of buyers,
alongside an everweakening interest in courtly, classical art.
As indicated by previous references in the Introduction to the rococo, the issue of generic status was often
bound up with artistic style which has in the past served as a focal point in histories of the period. Katie
Scott has argued that in eighteenthcentury France the heroic ideal embedded in conventional history
paintings no longer served the purposes of members of an aristocracy who had enjoyed but lost positions
of authority and influence in the final years of the reign of Louis XIV. The adoption of “gallant” rococo
subjects and styles of decoration, aiming to entertain the eye with their profusion of graceful curves, gold
and white, pastel shades, gleaming mirrors and reflected candle light, served as a means of establishing
moral and social authority independently of court favor and appointments, and as a means of negotiating
one’s cultural status within evolving social groups or “classes” of the wealthy. Distancing themselves
from mythic visions of public military or political power (traditional themes in grand history painting),
the concerns of aristocrats with new, social forms of influence became displaced to the realms of
gallantry and the “conquests” of love, in which they sought more private forms of cultural validation